There are others here more qualified to speak on this than I am on this particular issue but I do know this: Lenski began with e-coli bacteria and he ended with e-coli bacteria. Furthermore, no bacteria ever tested or observed for changes ever became anything other than bacteria. And...no scientist has ever caused bacteria to become non-bacteria, i.e. like an aphid or lice and certainly not a maggot. The law of God as to the stasis of living organisms in the same family still works as it always has.

Thank you for your contribution. I think someone will come along who can answer your question if you are patient.

Being a student of Biology, it is my opinion that it is technically futile to classify "species" of bacteria.

Here are some basics. Taxonomy for bacteria is different to animals and plants, since the physical differences of the bacteria are limited. Hence taxonomy defined by metabolic pathways the bacteria can undergo, thus this is linked to the DNA that the bacterium has

Now, the reason I say that classifying bacteria is futile is that bacteria have the ability to take in DNA from the environment, and incorporate it within their own DNA.. Hence, a bacterium has the ability to change "species" multiple times in a single cell lifetime. This fact completely undermines the reliability of what we determine as species.

Furthermore, the process these cells undergo is regulated within the cell itself, hence, this mechanism cannot be regarded as "evolution" since the mechanism itself cannot have evolved from itself.

The long term experiment is claimed to produce a different pathway, but the ability to degrade citrate is not new. In fact, it is already utilized in metabolism of glucose in the citric acid cycle... Considering this is basic biochemistry, it seems there is some mis-information here.... Here we see the evolutionists see some slim chance and jump on it, without fully testing it, only to find that the chance has failed...

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example."

Lenski began with e-coli bacteria and he ended with e-coli bacteria. Furthermore, no bacteria ever tested or observed for changes ever became anything other than bacteria. And...no scientist has ever caused bacteria to become non-bacteria, i.e. like an aphid or lice and certainly not a maggot.

Why would you think that the bacteria would become anything other than bacteria?

Why would you think that the bacteria would become anything other than bacteria?

Because that is what evolutionists claim..... Though a few I have spoken to have denied this, yet in doing so are nonsensical

Considering that the first life is believed to be bacteria, (or the ancestor of bacteria, though there is no evidence of such), then if all life came from a common ancestor then it must be claimed along with that basic tenet that life "evolved" from this first life.... from bacteria.

However there is much difficulty with this so some evolutionists try and dodge the problem

To expose this problem I ask you.

What was the first life on Earth? (according to the evolutionist)What evidence is there of this?

Now according to REAL science the only data we have is bacteria.

Now if bacteria was the first life, how did other forms of life arise whilst still being a bacteria?

You can't, in order to have other forms of life... say multicellular organisms they must move away from being prokaryotes even single celled. Hence the problem mentioned before is a very real and troubling problem. One of which there is no evidence to back up the evolutionist claim, it is merely assumed that life "must have evolved"... Assumptions are not science nor are they tenable explanations.

Hmm, interesting that you apparently don't believe that bacteria evolved into anything other than bacteria...yet other organisms (i.e. one celled organisms) eventually became man.

Explain that.

Yes it is interesting, I've had a few class-mates make that claim. In that everything "evolves" within its type ie- birds to different birds etc.... Yet when the topic of where the bird came from in the first place is asked, the fact that the above concept doesn't fit is not realised.... (even when explaining it at length lol)

Hmm, interesting that you apparently don't believe that bacteria evolved into anything other than bacteria...yet other organisms (i.e. one celled organisms) eventually became man.

Explain that.

Say it was possible to do this experiment with a much more complex organism, like a fruit fly. At the end of it however long it ran for, I wouldn't expect any of the final populations to be anything but fruit flies. Some of them might be a new species, not capable of interbreeding with any species in it's ancestory. These would still be fruit flies but a subset of the original species.

Yes it is interesting, I've had a few class-mates make that claim. In that everything "evolves" within its type ie- birds to different birds etc.... Yet when the topic of where the bird came from in the first place is asked, the fact that the above concept doesn't fit is not realised.... (even when explaining it at length lol)

Birds(feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals) are a modified subset of therapods. If some of the flightless birds today evolved to loose their wings they would still be birds, just a modified subset so a possible defnition of those would be: feathered, NON-winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals. Where a species 'comes from', it is just a modified subset of its ancestors.

Because that is what evolutionists claim..... Though a few I have spoken to have denied this, yet in doing so are nonsensical

I highly doubt any evolutionary biologist would claim that. If the bacteria became aphids/lice/something other than bacteria this would invalidate the ToE.

So bacteria have always existed then (i.e. did not evolve)? That is interesting from an evolutionistic viewpoint... Especially from an atheistic evolutionary viewpoint...

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that bacteria evolved from an ancestor which might have been the ancestor to archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, but what ever it was, It's very unlikely that bacteria started in their present form.

Say it was possible to do this experiment with a much more complex organism, like a fruit fly. At the end of it however long it ran for, I wouldn't expect any of the final populations to be anything but fruit flies. Some of them might be a new species, not capable of interbreeding with any species in it's ancestory. These would still be fruit flies but a subset of the original species.

Birds(feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals) are a modified subset of therapods. If some of the flightless birds today evolved to loose their wings they would still be birds, just a modified subset so a possible defnition of those would be: feathered, NON-winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals. Where a species 'comes from', it is just a modified subset of its ancestors.

I highly doubt any evolutionary biologist would claim that. If the bacteria became aphids/lice/something other than bacteria this would invalidate the ToE.

Did you read my post?

I thought it was clear......

If you start with a bacteria... and claim that a bacteria will only ever stay as bacteria... then where do all the other organisms come from?

Its very simple and it underlines what you claim defies evolution, I am merely exposing the illogical points of the evolution idea

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that bacteria evolved from an ancestor which might have been the ancestor to archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, but what ever it was, It's very unlikely that bacteria started in their present form.

Do you have evidence of this ancestor or is it merely an unsupported claim?

(I already know the answer, just want you to admit it)

Consider that it is taught at university level, (I know, I am a uni student), that Eukaryotes "evolved" from Prokaryotes... This doesn't bode well for your claims here.

If you start with a bacteria... and claim that a bacteria will only ever stay as bacteria... then where do all the other organisms come from?Its very simple and it underlines what you claim defies evolution, I am merely exposing the illogical points of the evolution idea

So bacteria have always existed then (i.e. did not evolve)? That is interesting from an evolutionistic viewpoint... Especially from an atheistic evolutionary viewpoint...

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that bacteria evolved from an ancestor which might have been the ancestor to archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, but what ever it was, It's very unlikely that bacteria started in their present form.

What you're saying is absolute speculation, as you have absolutely no evidence that bacteria evolved from anything. in fact, there is absolutely no evidence adduced that bacteria didn't start in it's present form.